Prosecutors have announced plans to retry the case against Jonathan Rinderknecht, who was accused of igniting the devastating Palisades fire that erupted in early January 2025. The trial ended in a deadlocked jury after more than 13 hours of deliberation over two days, leaving the verdict unresolved.

The fire initially began as the Lachman fire on January 1, 2025, reportedly smoldering underground for a week before igniting the larger Palisades fire on January 7. That subsequent blaze destroyed approximately 6,500 structures in Pacific Palisades and Malibu, killed 12 people, and caused billions of dollars in damages and insurance claims. Prosecutors argued during the trial that Rinderknecht, driven by mental health struggles and resentment toward wealthy residents, intentionally set the initial fire with a lighter while hiking to a clearing overlooking Pacific Palisades.

The jury initially indicated it had reached a unanimous verdict but later informed the judge they were at an impasse and uncertain how to proceed. Jurors expressed doubts about the evidence linking Rinderknecht to the fire’s origin. One juror, identifying herself as Syrena, voted not guilty and highlighted gaps in the prosecution’s case, including the absence of cellphone data placing Verizon users at the scene, inconsistent surveillance footage, and a lack of direct proof that Rinderknecht ignited the fire. She questioned why he was held solely responsible for the Palisades fire, given that it erupted after firefighters had left the initial smoldering blaze, a detail the defense emphasized but which the judge barred from being tied to alleged fire department negligence.

Defense attorneys challenged the prosecution’s narrative by presenting witnesses who suggested alternate causes and suspects. A local resident testified about teens leaving the area near the fire’s start, and a Los Angeles firefighter described hearing noises resembling fireworks in the vicinity. A defense expert disputed the cause and exact location of the fire’s origin, suggesting fireworks rather than a lighter were responsible. The defense also criticized the government’s focus on Rinderknecht’s use of ChatGPT, with jurors noting such activity is common and should not be used to impugn his character.

During deliberations, prosecutors requested an Allen charge—a judge’s instruction to encourage jurors to continue discussions—while the defense sought a mistrial, citing potential coercion. The judge ultimately declined the Allen charge but did not grant a mistrial, instead questioning the jury directly about their inability to reach a verdict. The foreperson confirmed the deadlock and stated no further court intervention could assist deliberations.

Family members of Rinderknecht expressed distress over the outcome, emphasizing their desire for his release, while some jurors criticized the decision to pursue a retrial as a misuse of public funds. Prosecutors have made clear their intention to retry the case, underscoring the seriousness of the charges linked to one of Southern California’s most destructive recent wildfires.